japan_cross_border_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Stateless lookup: records no decision and leaves no dashboard timeline trace.' It also describes the possible output categories (adequacy / standard basis / high scrutiny), providing important context beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by a concise behavioral note. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, the parameter's purpose, and side effects. It even names the possible result categories, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the sole parameter only as 'ISO-3166 alpha-2.' The description adds context by specifying it is the destination country (from the phrase 'destination country's APPI Art 28 status'), thereby giving the parameter meaning beyond the schema's type-only description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks the destination country's APPI Art 28 status for cross-border transfers from Japan, using a specific verb ('check') and a distinct resource (APPI Art 28 status). It is unambiguously distinguished from sibling tools like india_cross_border_status by the explicit Japan focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Before you transfer personal data out of Japan, check the destination country's APPI Art 28 status.' This indicates when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the Japan-specific context makes the applicability clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.